Collectivism: Family or State? An Essay On Mandatory
Vaccination

A recent article appearing in the January issue of the American Medical
Association Journal of Ethics, titled Virtual Mentor, should alert thinking
Americans to a dangerous precedent being set by so-called health
“authorities.” Actually, the concept of compulsion by the state for the
“public good,” is not all that new and is consistent with a collectivist
philosophy. So, you may ask–what is collectivism?

Basically, collectivism does not recognize the individual as being
important to society; in fact, its philosophers feel that the individual,
especially the intellectual, is an enemy of the “public good.”
Collectivism’s most recognized political expression in modern times is known
as socialism (actually communism–See the Communist Manifesto).

The founders of our country did not hold this view, rather they reasoned
that the individual must be protected from collectivism at all levels, hence
the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The court system was designed during
the founding to protect the rights of the individual. Within the founders’
philosophical view, the family is central to the individual’s rights. That
is, it is the father and/or mother who represent the most protective
structure for innocent children and not the state. The state intervenes only
in the most extreme cases of abuse and this is carefully regulated so as to
prevent abuse by the state.

Since the Civil War, we have witnessed a gradual, yet progressive move
toward the collectivist philosophy, where the state replaces the family and
individuals are sacrificed in the name of the “public good.” This process
has gained rapidly on many fronts, but one of the most disturbing is in the
area of public health.

Ronald Reagan warned in 1961–”One of the traditional methods of imposing
statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It is very
easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project.” Students of
the history of collectivism will also recognize that calls for increasing
the power of the state over the individual is always couched in terms of the
“public good” and “protecting the public.” That is, it is a “crisis” that
demands collectivist solutions and these solutions must be accepted without
debate or analysis by critics or more thoughtful and cautionary individuals.
The perfect example of this is the debate over vaccine effectiveness and
safety.

With that short introduction to collectivist thinking, let us examine the
paper, Virtual Mentor, written by Susanne Sheeley and Joel Meyer. They begin
by lamenting the fact that the previous system of recruiting volunteers for
testing experimental vaccines has fallen on hard times. That is, fewer
people are volunteering. They note that the “volunteers” are fully informed
of possible complications caused by the vaccines and these volunteers have
consented to be used in the experiments, in essence, as human guinea pigs.
The former assurance is not true, as several studies have shown that quite
often recognized, serious potential complications are withheld from the
volunteer.

Because of this fall in volunteers, they tell us– “But relying on
altruism alone to facilitate clinical trials is potentially unsustainable
and ethically contentious.” So, what is their solution to this problem?
Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that
is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration.—Mandatory
involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military
conscription—. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation,
individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent
risk over which they have no control, all for the greater good of
society. (Italics mine).

This statement is reminiscent of a statement made by the Fabian socialist
and first general director of UNESCO Julian Huxley in which he said
concerning implementation of a radical eugenics program–”it will be
important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem be examined with the
greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake
so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
(italics mine)

The extreme left collectivists bristle at being compared to the National
Socialists, so I will instead examine the source of Hitler’s eugenic
thinking, another “unthinkable” idea made “thinkable” by careful
manipulation of American social opinion makers in the very early 1900s. Keep
in mind that all these eugenic programs eventually resorted to compulsion
because the public could not be convinced to voluntarily accept the deadly
prescription being proposed by the state and self-appointed protectors of
the public good.

The beginning of the eugenic movement started with suggestions for human
betterment through selective breeding by British biologist Sir Francis
Galton in 1882. At the beginning of the 20th century (1904-1920s) the need
for enforcement of eugenic programs became a matter of “public health.” The
eugenic movement was heavily funded by the Rockefeller foundations and
Carnegie Institutions from its inception and continued even beyond the
National Socialist era.

It is also important to appreciate that this public health movement was
led by some of the most prominent individuals in society. Harvard educated
Charles Davenport was at center stage in this terrifying public health
movement. The elite proponents of mandatory eugenic policies included
Professor Henry Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History,
Alexander Graham Bell, wife of railroad magnate E.H. Harriman, the
prestigious Cold Spring Harbor biology laboratory, James Wilson, secretary
of the Department of Agriculture, Major Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwin’s
son), Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt and Linus Pauling, to name a
few.

University and college courses were provided for America’s most
prestigious institutions of learning, such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale,
Purdue, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, New York University
and University of California at Berkley. Soon eugenic courses were being
adopted by high school textbooks and courses. The journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) proudly covered the international eugenics
meeting in London and did so in glowing terms.

The goal of the eugenics proponents was to eventually sterilize 14
million people in the United States alone and millions more worldwide.
Before clearer heads prevailed, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized
and this is considered a conservative figure. Support for this monstrous
program was based on pseudoscience and powerful state-supported propaganda,
just as we are witnessing in the present day vaccine mania.

Each generation thinks it is far more intelligent than previous
generations and therefore comparisons with earlier abuses of science and
public policy cannot be made. Yet, support for forced sterilization and
interment camps for the “unfit” were strongly supported by men considered to
be the giants of biology and medicine as well as influential men of
government and private foundations. Eugenic mania spread across the world
among the most intelligent class. Opponents were labeled “enemies of the
public good” and as individuals unqualified to discuss the problem, just as
we hear today with vaccine safety. Vaccine mandate proponents state that
opponents of their programs are uneducated and unqualified to speak on the
subject, even when they are far greater experts in the field of vaccine
safety and pathophysiology than the proponents.

I have written eight papers and several chapters on the mechanisms of
vaccine-induced neuropathology and neurological injury and proposed a
plausible mechanism to explain a link to vaccine-induced autism, yet the
only person quoted on this issue in the national media is Paul Offit, who
not only profits handsomely from his own vaccine creation, but admitted in
an interview that he knows nothing about neurology or brain function.

It was assumed by the eugenics social engineers that all crime, mental
subnormality, laziness, alcoholism, blindness and “antisocial behavior” were
hereditary and therefore controllable by forced sterilization. Laws were
passed based on this phony science and tens of thousands suffered.

Lucien Howe, one of the most prominent names in ophthalmology, in 1918
took up the cause of eugenic prevention of blindness and poor vision, just
as Offit carries the vaccine banner. He compiled data showing that $3.8
million was the national cost of blindness and that mandatory sterilization
of the blind would prevent this nation tragedy. The problem was that over
90% of blindness had no hereditary link. Despite this, he campaigned
tirelessly to have laws passed for forced sterilization of all blind
individuals.

Howe did not stand alone, but was given valuable support by the AMA and
Carnegie Institution. He suggested that authorities wait to discover a blind
person and “then go back and get the rest of his family.” By 1921, the
Eugenic Record Office (ERO) and the AMA section on ophthalmology had drafted
a more comprehensive law that targeted all people with imperfect vision.
Doctor Howe insisted that the law include provisions to imprison the
visually impaired. The AMA provided a list of prominent medical professors
to support Howe’s legislative proposals. All of this is reminiscent of the
present vaccine battle.

Sheehy and Meyer makes the argument that because the public benefits from
vaccine trials people should be made to participate against their will. We
must then ask–Should people be forced to have an experimental surgical
procedure because if successful, it will benefit many? Should they be forced
to take experimental medications?

This principle of mandatory medical procedures could also apply to
experimental brain surgery, such as the infamous frontal lobotomy. After
all, at the time, it was thought to greatly benefit thousands and was used
to treat sadness, depression, unruly behavior in children and anxiety. Sure,
the effects were irreversible, but so is the neurological damage caused by
vaccine reactions.

The history of medicine should have taught us that excitement over a
treatment or procedure can often turn to disaster down the road. Thalidomide
was considered to be a very safe tranquilizer–no one knew at the time if
given to pregnant mothers, the child would be born with crippling limb
deformities. What if taking thalidomide had been mandatory at the
time–millions would have been crippled.

We are learning a great deal about the safety issue associated with
vaccines, but much of this careful research is being ignored. Tomljenovic
and Shaw, Strunecka and others have published a number of very important
papers in this field and I think I have made a compelling case for a
mechanism, immunoexcitotoxicity, to explain the effect of multiple vaccines
on brain development including vaccine-associated seizures.

All of us should be terrified by the totalitarian nature exercised by the
proponents of mandatory vaccines. Many are openly calling not only for
mandatory vaccinations, but also hiding critical safety data from the public
so as to give the impression of vaccine safety. Programs for mandated
eugenics ended when the public realized the true result of such plans. This
history is now rarely spoken about, yet present vaccine policies are just as
frightening because they hold the potential to irreversibility destroy the
lives of millions of our children.

I would make an open proposal to those who support mandated vaccines and
participation in vaccine trials. The first participants should be the CEOs
of pharmaceutical vaccine makers, their board members, their families and
then all their employees and their families. All those who have written or
proposed legislation or rules for mandating vaccines should also be
submitted for testing, including Sheehy and Meyers. This, of course includes
all of their families. At the top of the list should be Paul Offit. I can
assure you that if such a policy were instituted we would be hearing a whole
lot less about mandating vaccines.

Editorial Appointments: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons,
Journal of the American Nutriceutical Association, Scientific Advisory Board
of the Life Extension Foundation, Editorial Board of Fluoride Journal;
Editorial board of Surgical Neurology International

Appointments: Clinical Assistant Professor in Neurosurgery at the
University of Mississippi Medical Center, retired in 2001. Visiting
Professor of Biology, Belhaven University-Jackson, Mississippi.

24. Blaylock RL. A review of conventional cancer prevention and treatment
and the adjunctive use of nutraceutical supplements and antioxidants: Is
their a danger or a significant benefit? J Amer Nutra Assoc. 2000;3: 17-35.

25. Blaylock RL. New Developments in the prevention and treatment of
Neurodegenerative diseases using nutraceuticals and metabolic stimulants.
JANA 2002; 5: 1-18.